Swing Weight vs. RHS

[Shroud]

I have 2 of the same rackets but I removed all the lead from one. The fully leaded has a 400SW the one without the lead is around 330.

I really like the RHS of the 330 one and see the advantage of that and it being sooo light to maneuver. But I miss the 400sw and its solidity and effortlessness.

Is there a way to get both? Say a 340- 350sw? Or are they mutually exclusive? at what point does RHS start to diminish and what is the sweet spot for both? The magical 370SW is almost right in the middle between these two extremes.

 

[Power Player]

Varies from player to player but I get good RHS at 355-365. The goal is to have good tip speed without overswinging and muscling the ball.

 

[RanchDressing]

I like 355. I've gone back and fourth between high 340's and low 360's many times, and each time I go around that 355 mark, it feels great.

With the 340's I feel like I have a lot left on the table in terms of all out put away power or even heavy rally ball, and 360 lesser room on the table, but sometimes feels maybe a bit excessive and have to "reel in" the power depending on the string being used.

Try a 350+ with non kevlar, preferably something lively in the bed. You could just stick 6g @ 27" on that rf97a and see how that plays.

I'm really enjoying this 355sw, 356g 32.X cm balance setup on my 97 with tonic mains, rpm team cross. The string bed gives a lot of power, especially with this swing weight, but I could easily be using a much higher swing weight, so the racquet feels really quick, light even.

To me once I pass around 370, I really start giving up quickness more rapidly. Not in a max rhs sort of way, just how conscious I have to be about lining everything up, and making me use a bit more prep in my strokes. At 350 it really feels only marginally more difficult than 330, but with a drastic boost in spin and power.

With even 370 I've returned some of my best, but I feel like I'm leaving power on the table (having to pull back on my strokes at times) simply because the racquet can have so much power. And then when using stiffer string beds, I got tired of being ball sensitive. Someone brings out older balls and I feel like I'm re adjusting all my shots trajectories rather aggressively.

 

[Disgruntled Worker]

I tend to focus more on my own fitness rather than the semantics of gear. If I'm in shape it doesn't matter if the racquet weighs 350 grams or 450 grams. The latter will tire me out much more quickly. But that's the sacrifice.

 

[RanchDressing]

I tend to focus more on my own fitness rather than the semantics of gear. If I'm in shape it doesn't matter if the racquet weighs 350 grams or 450 grams. The latter will tire me out much more quickly. But that's the sacrifice.

It's great to focus on your fitness, but at the end of the day the racquet matters. It takes me 5-10 minutes to setup a racquet depending on what I want to do (sometimes A LOT longer). Not much time or effort considering it takes me 3 times that to string a racquet (or more). Let alone the countless hours we all spend learning/practicing.

5-10 minutes of simple straight forward cutting and taping of a racquet can get you performance increases that no amount of training can give you; changing the way the racquet behaves.

I just think that old narrative has been too over used and unfairly used. If anything, it's foolish to spend hundreds of hours, possibly thousands on coaching/training, only to use a racquet that is fundamentally holding you back. Especially when the cost in terms of time, and material to make a racquet perform much better is basically minuscule. If you calculate the value of the lead you typically put on a racquet, it's really probably one of the cheapest things you'll ever buy. Less than a can of balls, or even pack of overgrips. Even in extreme cases, you're never going to use even 30$ worth of tape on one racquet.

So I think that kind of thinking is well... a step backwards. I never want to tell people to not worry about technique, the opposite really. But we need to stop acting like caring what you're using is stupid.

If this was a topic about "Should I buy this new racquet that everyone likes?" or "which one of these new racquets should I buy?" then I could see the attitude against it. Because at least on some level you're not getting what you believe you are, and usually not getting your money's worth.

Just my two cents. Your post wasn't as cringey as some of the responses I've seen on here, but I just want to say I disagree. And there are plenty of facts to prove it. Especially when someone like shroud is asking for input... Using a 400sw isn't anything to just casually say "training is important", that's a lot of racquet. Making a switch to even 350 is going to be a big change. A bigger one than 99% of the players on here will ever even consider.

 

[Irvin]

@Shroud RHS and high SW are mutually xclusive. The more torque required to accelerate the racket the longer it takes to come up to speed. Also once that high SW racket comes up to speed it takes longer to stop it and turn it around for the next shot, unless you just want to sit on the baseline and hit balls. A high SW racket will also slow you down on the court. Your arms and legs will always move in unison. If one arm pumps slower the other will follow and slow down. If your arms slow down your legs will do the same.

Change in SW, more often than not, makes a pretty big difference. Going up in SW, at least for me, is easier than going down. It takes longer for me to become accustomed to lower SWs than higher ones, but no matter which direction the SW change goes I can almost immediately see the advantages of both. Once you find something closer to what is best suited for your game the less you will be inclined to change.

 

[Disgruntled Worker]

It's great to focus on your fitness, but at the end of the day the racquet matters. It takes me 5-10 minutes to setup a racquet depending on what I want to do (sometimes A LOT longer). Not much time or effort considering it takes me 3 times that to string a racquet (or more). Let alone the countless hours we all spend learning/practicing.

5-10 minutes of simple straight forward cutting and taping of a racquet can get you performance increases that no amount of training can give you; changing the way the racquet behaves.

I just think that old narrative has been too over used and unfairly used. If anything, it's foolish to spend hundreds of hours, possibly thousands on coaching/training, only to use a racquet that is fundamentally holding you back. Especially when the cost in terms of time, and material to make a racquet perform much better is basically minuscule. If you calculate the value of the lead you typically put on a racquet, it's really probably one of the cheapest things you'll ever buy. Less than a can of balls, or even pack of overgrips. Even in extreme cases, you're never going to use even 30$ worth of tape on one racquet.

So I think that kind of thinking is well... a step backwards. I never want to tell people to not worry about technique, the opposite really. But we need to stop acting like caring what you're using is stupid.

If this was a topic about "Should I buy this new racquet that everyone likes?" or "which one of these new racquets should I buy?" then I could see the attitude against it. Because at least on some level you're not getting what you believe you are, and usually not getting your money's worth.

Just my two cents. Your post wasn't as cringey as some of the responses I've seen on here, but I just want to say I disagree. And there are plenty of facts to prove it. Especially when someone like shroud is asking for input... Using a 400sw isn't anything to just casually say "training is important", that's a lot of racquet. Making a switch to even 350 is going to be a big change. A bigger one than 99% of the players on here will ever even consider.

I doubt anyone here plays at a high enough level where it would even make a difference. I'd rather focus on fitness which will benefit me in other aspects of my life outside of tennis. Fixating on balance point, and recoil weight and other nonsense seems like an enormous waste of time unless I make some sort of living playing tennis.

I doubt Roger Federer has even heard the term "recoil weight" much less know what his racquet's is. I would assume he just goes by what feels good and allows him to win and lets his racquet tech take care of the rest.

 

[RanchDressing]

I doubt anyone here plays at a high enough level where it would even make a difference. I'd rather focus on fitness which will benefit me in other aspects of my life outside of tennis. Fixating on balance point, and recoil weight and other nonsense seems like an enormous waste of time unless I make some sort of living playing tennis.

I doubt Roger Federer has even heard the term "recoil weight" much less know what his racquet's is. I would assume he just goes by what feels good and allows him to win and lets his racquet tech take care of the rest.

Lol, ok that's fine. Some people on these boards that I've worked with are former pros, and have not only seen the difference in my game, but their own with some fine tweaking, but hey that's your own opinion and I won't try to change it.

You don't need to know all these terms for them to actually be working. It's just physics. Physics don't care what you know. Also, of course federer doesn't need to know anything. That's why he pays p1 over 40k a year to deal with his racquets, and he has wilson pro room to help make that happen. Using these terms just helps people figure out what to do, and to explain why certain things work.

But you keep doing your own thing if it's working for you.

Just recognize you came in the racquet section to come crap on someone's legitimate question.

I think enough people on here are starting to recognize that these types of posts are just people being (insert word here) on the internet, and don't hold nearly as much water as people like you act out.

 

[movdqa]

I have 2 of the same rackets but I removed all the lead from one. The fully leaded has a 400SW the one without the lead is around 330.

I really like the RHS of the 330 one and see the advantage of that and it being sooo light to maneuver. But I miss the 400sw and its solidity and effortlessness.

Is there a way to get both? Say a 340- 350sw? Or are they mutually exclusive? at what point does RHS start to diminish and what is the sweet spot for both? The magical 370SW is almost right in the middle between these two extremes.

335 was way to low for me. But I can see the benefits of higher RHS. It's just that I have four matched frames and going from that to doing it all over again is a bit daunting. Especially since I like XL frames. I should probably drop to 370 as well. The easiest way to do that would be to take my current frames, buy four sets of CAP grommets (you can't reuse the old ones), remove some lead, put on the new grommets, restring. Then spend about two months getting used to it. I'm just going to hit with my current frames and think about it before next spring. Another option would be to do this with my YT Prestiges as I could do them in parallel with hitting with the IGs.

Or I might just keep hitting with what I have.

Of course I'll keep running and doing weights while contemplating.

 

[travlerajm]

Depends on the racquet length.
For a 27" midplus-headsize, the sweet spot is about 370 for me.
But if I shorten the same frame 1/4" (leaving the effective mass the same), then 360 SW feels best (meaning going down in swingweight allows me to maintain the same zip on serve).

If I go higher than these thresholds, I start to lose some zip on the serve. If I never had to serve, I would go a bit higher in swingweight than I do.
If I drop SW below my sweet zone, I lose that "i'm the boss" feeling of stability that makes it easy to return and play defense against heavy hard kick serves and big topspin groundies.

Another consideration is that the natural spin level of the racquet-ball collision is minimized at a SW of about 355 (for a standard size frame). If you go higher than that (remember "SW2"), the impact gets spinnier. If you go lower than that, spin level also goes up. Not that you can't still hit lots of spin at 355, but for me I don't like the flatter feel of that "in between" swingweight range. This mostly applies if you are using a crisp low-dwell-time setup like I prefer.

 

[Power Player]

Fitness makes the #1 difference for me. When you are fit, you have active feet at all times and are in better position to properly hit the ball.

But when you are fit and have good technique, it really helps to think about your frame. The heavier frames actually save me energy. When people say a heavy frame tires them out, I think they are really not used to having to move as much as they should have been all along. I have been there too, so I get it. But the main reason to use a heavier SW for me is I actually conserve energy.

 

[Serjojeee]

When I played 2hbh it needed high swingweight around 350 was ok, but that changed the my sw forehand to the bent arm style cause the racquet was too heavy on that wing. Now I play as lefty one hander and with modified eastern grips, straight arm fh and sw is approximately 330. The gym work however made that too easy and I'll most likely bump that to 335.

 

[zalive]

I like 355. I've gone back and fourth between high 340's and low 360's many times, and each time I go around that 355 mark, it feels great.

I like 350-360 zone. At 350 racquet gets serious, at 360 I'm not sure if I gain more on solidity than I lose at RHS. Both feel good though. Somehow the middle ground is at 355

Anyway I think you should try 350-360 to see if it's solid enough for you.

 

[RanchDressing]

Depends on the racquet length.
For a 27" midplus-headsize, the sweet spot is about 370 for me.
But if I shorten the same frame 1/4" (leaving the effective mass the same), then 360 SW feels best (meaning going down in swingweight allows me to maintain the same zip on serve).

If I go higher than these thresholds, I start to lose some zip on the serve. If I never had to serve, I would go a bit higher in swingweight than I do.
If I drop SW below my sweet zone, I lose that "i'm the boss" feeling of stability that makes it easy to return and play defense against heavy hard kick serves and big topspin groundies.

Another consideration is that the natural spin level of the racquet-ball collision is minimized at a SW of about 355 (for a standard size frame). If you go higher than that (remember "SW2"), the impact gets spinnier. If you go lower than that, spin level also goes up. Not that you can't still hit lots of spin at 355, but for me I don't like the flatter feel of that "in between" swingweight range. This mostly applies if you are using a crisp low-dwell-time setup like I prefer.

I think that 26" idea is much better than people give credit for. For the same swing weight, you can have that much more hitting weight, increasing the effectiveness of contact at higher areas of the frame. So in a way you really have no loss in rhs (in terms of contact point length).

And I totally agree with you on the sw and string choice/string pattern. I definitely feel a 355 with a tight/low dwell time is leaving a lot on the table in pace AND spin.

 

[Matthew Lee]

I have no idea how you guys manage swingweights over 340. My max at the moment is 335, but that's probably because I've learned to become more of a modern player, utilizing baseline topspin groundies, as that's how people my age play nowadays.

 

[Shroud]

I have no idea how you guys manage swingweights over 340. My max at the moment is 335, but that's probably because I've learned to become more of a modern player, utilizing baseline topspin groundies, as that's how people my age play nowadays.

My 2 cents on this is that you are right in a way. If you are used to low swing weights then YOU have to supply the power as the racket doesnt do much for power. So the thought of higher SW makes one think it will tire them quickly. But as Power Player points out, a higher SW is actually less involved because the racket provides a ton of power. Its a different stroke for sure but it IS possible with a bit of work.

Jokovic is a great example I think and I bet his SW is 370 yet he plays a "modern" game.

 

[Matthew Lee]

My 2 cents on this is that you are right in a way. If you are used to low swing weights then YOU have to supply the power as the racket doesnt do much for power. So the thought of higher SW makes one think it will tire them quickly. But as Power Player points out, a higher SW is actually less involved because the racket provides a ton of power. Its a different stroke for sure but it IS possible with a bit of work.

Jokovic is a great example I think and I bet his SW is 370 yet he plays a "modern" game.

Maybe that's why he's grunting like crazy

 

[Shroud]

Depends on the racquet length.
For a 27" midplus-headsize, the sweet spot is about 370 for me.
But if I shorten the same frame 1/4" (leaving the effective mass the same), then 360 SW feels best (meaning going down in swingweight allows me to maintain the same zip on serve).

If I go higher than these thresholds, I start to lose some zip on the serve. If I never had to serve, I would go a bit higher in swingweight than I do.
If I drop SW below my sweet zone, I lose that "i'm the boss" feeling of stability that makes it easy to return and play defense against heavy hard kick serves and big topspin groundies.

Another consideration is that the natural spin level of the racquet-ball collision is minimized at a SW of about 355 (for a standard size frame). If you go higher than that (remember "SW2"), the impact gets spinnier. If you go lower than that, spin level also goes up. Not that you can't still hit lots of spin at 355, but for me I don't like the flatter feel of that "in between" swingweight range. This mostly applies if you are using a crisp low-dwell-time setup like I prefer.

Maybe that's why he's grunting like crazy

Here is the same racket but one is at 400 and one at 330. Can you figure out which one I am working harder on? Or which is which?

 

[Shroud]

Depends on the racquet length.
For a 27" midplus-headsize, the sweet spot is about 370 for me.
But if I shorten the same frame 1/4" (leaving the effective mass the same), then 360 SW feels best (meaning going down in swingweight allows me to maintain the same zip on serve).

If I go higher than these thresholds, I start to lose some zip on the serve. If I never had to serve, I would go a bit higher in swingweight than I do.
If I drop SW below my sweet zone, I lose that "i'm the boss" feeling of stability that makes it easy to return and play defense against heavy hard kick serves and big topspin groundies.

Another consideration is that the natural spin level of the racquet-ball collision is minimized at a SW of about 355 (for a standard size frame). If you go higher than that (remember "SW2"), the impact gets spinnier. If you go lower than that, spin level also goes up. Not that you can't still hit lots of spin at 355, but for me I don't like the flatter feel of that "in between" swingweight range. This mostly applies if you are using a crisp low-dwell-time setup like I prefer.

Interesting thought on the racket length and spin. The racket is 27.25". I think I am getting more spin then ever but some of that may just be the ESP string bed. With the 400 sw I HAVE to string super tight and use poly. On the lower SW racket zx is in play with a 40lb differential. What struck me is that the 400sw racket with the kev/poly at 86/86 had such a lower launch angle! Very very low and it was hard to get any higher trajectory.

Added bout 6g today 4 at 9pm and 2 at 12pm. Hit some serves and it was pretty good. Though I think a bit more weight is in order.

On the serve what gives the most spin? The lower or higher SW?

 

[Shroud]

I doubt anyone here plays at a high enough level where it would even make a difference. I'd rather focus on fitness which will benefit me in other aspects of my life outside of tennis. Fixating on balance point, and recoil weight and other nonsense seems like an enormous waste of time unless I make some sort of living playing tennis.

I doubt Roger Federer has even heard the term "recoil weight" much less know what his racquet's is. I would assume he just goes by what feels good and allows him to win and lets his racquet tech take care of the rest.

Totally understand this. I just wish you were here and could see how the same model but customized differently could have such and impact on your game and what shots you hit well and didnt.

 

[Shroud]

@Shroud RHS and high SW are mutually xclusive. The more torque required to accelerate the racket the longer it takes to come up to speed. Also once that high SW racket comes up to speed it takes longer to stop it and turn it around for the next shot, unless you just want to sit on the baseline and hit balls. A high SW racket will also slow you down on the court. Your arms and legs will always move in unison. If one arm pumps slower the other will follow and slow down. If your arms slow down your legs will do the same.

Change in SW, more often than not, makes a pretty big difference. Going up in SW, at least for me, is easier than going down. It takes longer for me to become accustomed to lower SWs than higher ones, but no matter which direction the SW change goes I can almost immediately see the advantages of both. Once you find something closer to what is best suited for your game the less you will be inclined to change.

I seem to be somewhat SW agnostic in that I can play ok going up or down 70 points, with an adjustment period.

Good point about legs and arms and the concepts being mutually exclusive. I am just looking for the Sweet Spot. Also I think the string bed makes a difference. Lower SW allows a softer string bed whereas I have to max stiffness with the high SW racket.

 

[Shroud]

It's great to focus on your fitness, but at the end of the day the racquet matters. It takes me 5-10 minutes to setup a racquet depending on what I want to do (sometimes A LOT longer). Not much time or effort considering it takes me 3 times that to string a racquet (or more). Let alone the countless hours we all spend learning/practicing.

5-10 minutes of simple straight forward cutting and taping of a racquet can get you performance increases that no amount of training can give you; changing the way the racquet behaves.

I just think that old narrative has been too over used and unfairly used. If anything, it's foolish to spend hundreds of hours, possibly thousands on coaching/training, only to use a racquet that is fundamentally holding you back. Especially when the cost in terms of time, and material to make a racquet perform much better is basically minuscule. If you calculate the value of the lead you typically put on a racquet, it's really probably one of the cheapest things you'll ever buy. Less than a can of balls, or even pack of overgrips. Even in extreme cases, you're never going to use even 30$ worth of tape on one racquet.

So I think that kind of thinking is well... a step backwards. I never want to tell people to not worry about technique, the opposite really. But we need to stop acting like caring what you're using is stupid.

If this was a topic about "Should I buy this new racquet that everyone likes?" or "which one of these new racquets should I buy?" then I could see the attitude against it. Because at least on some level you're not getting what you believe you are, and usually not getting your money's worth.

Just my two cents. Your post wasn't as cringey as some of the responses I've seen on here, but I just want to say I disagree. And there are plenty of facts to prove it. Especially when someone like shroud is asking for input... Using a 400sw isn't anything to just casually say "training is important", that's a lot of racquet. Making a switch to even 350 is going to be a big change. A bigger one than 99% of the players on here will ever even consider.

Good post! It might be worthy of a video. Like the same player hitting with 2 of the same rackets but one customized high and one low.

 

[Karma Tennis]

I tend to focus more on my own fitness rather than the semantics of gear. If I'm in shape it doesn't matter if the racquet weighs 350 grams or 450 grams. The latter will tire me out much more quickly. But that's the sacrifice.

If the latter will tire you out much more quickly then the different weight DOES MATTER!

And that's before we start discussing playing style, how you hold the racquet, SHBH -vs- DHBH, etc.

Indeed, fitness is a very important aspect, TYPE of fitness is even more important because tennis requires a specific set of physical skills, and more importantly a specific set of mental skills.

I see the equipment as being a tool of the trade. You want to have the optimal tool for you. And that usually means customising equipment and experimenting with it to suit your personal game. Also keep in mind, there is no absolute one solution here. The human body does not operate in terms of absolutes here. It can usually tolerate a range of options that are ideal. The key to success is to narrow down that range to keep things simple and deterministic.

But I think a lot of people think that using perfectly customised equipment will make up for a lack of fitness. It might for a game of two, maybe even for a six game set. But it will not when it is a proper and tight match near the end of the Third Set.

 

[RanchDressing]

Good post! It might be worthy of a video. Like the same player hitting with 2 of the same rackets but one customized high and one low.

Lol don't spoil future surprises that are planned to be filmed with a drone

 

[Shroud]

Lol don't spoil future surprises that are planned to be filmed with a drone

saw the drone. Pretty cool. And that last vid was pretty good and applicable to this thread!

I served today and for the life of me i can't seem to get enough racket head speed on the kicker. Probably a technique or tight back thing but I thought this low SW racket would help with the kicker but its a mixed bag. I think there IS more action but it doesnt seem to be as heavy. UGH.

And should I add weight at 3&9 or just 12? Which gives more spin?

 

[Karma Tennis]

And should I add weight at 3&9 or just 12? Which gives more spin?

In our experience adding more weight at 12 provides more spin potential and a "heavier" ball if there is no reduction in RHS and the ball is hit cleanly.

The key to finding the right amount is to add weight in 1 gram increments. I use Blue-Tac. Start with 0.5g each side of the top of the hoop. Then add 0.5g to each side until it starts to feel too heavy. Then trim 1g off each side for your final result.

Of course, keep in mind that adding weight to the tip is going to affect your Balance. We compensate for that by adding weight inside the handle. But YMMV depending on how you like the racquet to Balance in your hand.

In an ideal world, we would have one customised racquet for serving and one different one for receiving. That is possible to do with Blue-Tac but it becomes a little bit impractical in the heat of battle.

 

[RanchDressing]

saw the drone. Pretty cool. And that last vid was pretty good and applicable to this thread!

I served today and for the life of me i can't seem to get enough racket head speed on the kicker. Probably a technique or tight back thing but I thought this low SW racket would help with the kicker but its a mixed bag. I think there IS more action but it doesnt seem to be as heavy. UGH.

And should I add weight at 3&9 or just 12? Which gives more spin?

As karma said, 12 is the best location for spin, because you're increasing hitting weight and moving the nodes of the frame up. Both increase power towards the tip of the frame, which is where the frame produces the most spin.

Thing's aren't quite the same with the serve. On a ground stroke remember the ball has incoming pace, where as on the serve, the ball has roughly zero incoming pace. So you don't have to push through the momentum of the ball.

If it's a problem with the kick, it's probably something technique related. But my kick has never been something I've been happy with, so I can't really give you any pointers. I can hit a pretty good one from time to time (head level by the baseline, twisting outside the doubles alley), but it's not consistent (which is bad lmao kick is supposed to be always in!). I just don't have that technique down all the way. There could be a lot of things causing issues. I do however feel I get more spin on my kick with a heavier racquet, just not nearly as much as the difference on lets say the forehand.

 

[Karma Tennis]

I do however feel I get more spin on my kick with a heavier racquet, just not nearly as much as the difference on lets say the forehand.

I agree with this. But I will add that I think it is harder to hit the kicker with a consistent stroke when using a heavier racquet.

So the heavier racquet gives improved kick serve potential at the risk of less consistency. It is just a matter of finding the best compromise to give you a weapon that is consistent.

I would rather hit a 100mph serve into the box 9/10 times than a 120mph serve 7/10 times, if you know what I mean.

 

[RanchDressing]

I agree with this. But I will add that I think it is harder to hit the kicker with a consistent stroke when using a heavier racquet.

So the heavier racquet gives improved kick serve potential at the risk of less consistency. It is just a matter of finding the best compromise to give you a weapon that is consistent.

I would rather hit a 100mph serve into the box 9/10 times than a 120mph serve 7/10 times, if you know what I mean.

I think 120 7/10 for a first would make me very happy lol. More so than a 100mph 9/10! That's enough to beat most people you come across LOL

But I get your point. I don't really have a problem with these higher SW on my serve. I finally put the motion together with them, so it feels normal. The syncing of the toss is my biggest issue, and will just take some time to get down

 

[floydcouncil]

Here is the same racket but one is at 400 and one at 330. Can you figure out which one I am working harder on? Or which is which?

You people who are barely a 4.0 level player focus WAAAAAAY too much on your equipment to "make" you a better player. Try taking lessons and keeping 5 rally balls in the court.

I would hate to see your serve with a 400SW frame. WOW!!!!

 

[zalive]

You people who are barely a 4.0 level player focus WAAAAAAY too much on your equipment to "make" you a better player. Try taking lessons and keeping 5 rally balls in the court.

I would hate to see your serve with a 400SW frame. WOW!!!!

But these are specific practicing sessions.
It's the footwork that limits one really. With magnificent footwork (which requires good physical ability) you don't even need to have a great technique to reach 4.5. Without it...


Let alone this, when we talk about SW, yeah, SW is a great thing. But there is much more beside it that decide too. It's the inherent power of the frame determined by its construction and design. It's also the string bed that determines much. There are ways to keep the SW lower but get easy power by using sticks that more easily give it...and it's not necessary about head size or string pattern, beam width or flex. Graphite layers inside determine much, they can give power and they can take it away.

SW (also RW and TW) philosophy is I guess more about stability - while there are other ways to get power and spin (which also requires power, only aimed to create the spin), and while higher RHS helps you get it, its the mention weights that can make your racquet stable the desired way. So what one typically does is build up the rotational weights (inertia) according to personal desires, then give away some of the power with the string bed choice (and also with frame choice). So no wonder that players like movdqa use inherently low powered frames like Prestige for a modification platform.

 

[RanchDressing]

You people who are barely a 4.0 level player focus WAAAAAAY too much on your equipment to "make" you a better player. Try taking lessons and keeping 5 rally balls in the court.

I would hate to see your serve with a 400SW frame. WOW!!!!

Yeah you know everyone's ntrp rating. Especially from watching a 5 minute clip of baseline rally.

I know a few people on here who "focus way too much on their equipment" who would take 99% of players to the wood shed, even a lot of guys at the 5.0 or 5.5 level.

If you think a 400 sw on a modern racquet is too much, I'd hate to see someone put a woodie in your hands. Beyond that I would love to see you handle shroud.

 

[zalive]

I have no idea how you guys manage swingweights over 340. My max at the moment is 335, but that's probably because I've learned to become more of a modern player, utilizing baseline topspin groundies, as that's how people my age play nowadays.

My speculation is that it depends a lot how much you use your buddy to get RHS. Because your trunk is stronger than your arm, hence less (in SW ranges used this means not at all) bothered with a higher SW.

But without getting into technique at all, a higher SW really has to be carefully balanced (including for MgR/I) to show its best. Otherwise it's easy to end up with a lagging racquet which is indeed harder to swing with.

I was giving my project racquet (PK Destiny FCS modified at around 356 grams currently with SW at around 355), and pretty much everyone's comment was how this racquet was never heavier to swing with than some 20 grams lighter racquets. It's because I paid attention to sufficiently compensate its heavily polarized setup with portion of lead at 7''. And funny, MgR/I is not even near 21 as it should be - it's currently at 20.7. So it might be even faster to swing with if I wanted to.

 

[Minion]

I agree with @RanchDressing , 355 is the sweetspot for me as well. My IG Prestige Pro's are matched to 361g, 33cm, 355sw. I have 1 IG Prestige MP and one YouTek Prestige MP, which I'm in the process of matching to: 372g, 32.2cm, 360sw. They're 18x20, so they should be a little heavier Gotta love cotton and fishing weights

 

[Irvin]

Also I think the string bed makes a difference. Lower SW allows a softer string bed whereas I have to max stiffness with the high SW racket.

There is only one Sweetspot that I know of the moves around on the racket and that's the COP.

 

[Serjojeee]

My speculation is that it depends a lot how much you use your buddy to get RHS. Because your trunk is stronger than your arm, hence less (in SW ranges used this means not at all) bothered with a higher SW.

But without getting into technique at all, a higher SW really has to be carefully balanced (including for MgR/I) to show its best. Otherwise it's easy to end up with a lagging racquet which is indeed harder to swing with.

I was giving my project racquet (PK Destiny FCS modified at around 356 grams currently with SW at around 355), and pretty much everyone's comment was how this racquet was never heavier to swing with than some 20 grams lighter racquets. It's because I paid attention to sufficiently compensate its heavily polarized setup with portion of lead at 7''. And funny, MgR/I is not even near 21 as it should be - it's currently at 20.7. So it might be even faster to swing with if I wanted to.

Different balances for different folks ) I prefer the heavy fealing of equal balanced racquets. That was a good thing to find this thread, + 2 inches of lead at 9.30 and 2.30 greatly improved my serving with bab ps 18x20. Moving back to what I am used to swing. It's really not that easy to go down with sw.

 

[Irvin]

I am just looking for the Sweet Spot. Also I think the string bed makes a difference. Lower SW allows a softer string bed whereas I have to max stiffness with the high SW racket.

There is only one Sweetspot that I know of the moves around on the racket and that's the COP.

A lower SW means you have a lower COP. The period of the racket when swung from your grip axis (~10 cm) time 9.78" is the location of your COP also as you change the distance between your grip axis and the COM your COP location changes. The period is directly proportional to the MOI around the pivot axis and the distance from the MOI axis and the COM. If I remember correctly you were experimenting with shorter rackets. S shorter racket will have a COP closer to the grip axis.

 

[zalive]

I'm not sure Shroud doesn't talk about sweet zone when he mentions sweet spot (and sweet zone is popularly called a sweet spot, which is not correct but that expression is still used this way in conversations).

@Shroud :
Sweet zone is great at 350-360 SW range. But if you want great width you usually have to put some lead at 3+9 o'clock. Sweet zone always expands in direction of the lead. What I did with Destiny (and some other frames too) is lead all around from 9 to 3 o'clock, and the result is wide sweet zone in all relevant directions. Also, sweet spot will naturally be moved more in direction of tip. How much exactly, I guess Irvin might know to calculate. Now, if I only added lead at 12 o'clock, I guess it would depend on the frame (and its stock weight distribution) how wide would it be the sweet zone.

 

[movdqa]

I'm not sure Shroud doesn't talk about sweet zone when he mentions sweet spot (and sweet zone is popularly called a sweet spot, which is not correct but that expression is still used this way in conversations).

@Shroud :
Sweet zone is great at 350-360 SW range. But if you want great width you usually have to put some lead at 3+9 o'clock. Sweet zone always expands in direction of the lead. What I did with Destiny (and some other frames too) is lead all around from 9 to 3 o'clock, and the result is wide sweet zone in all relevant directions. Also, sweet spot will naturally be moved more in direction of tip. How much exactly, I guess Irvin might know to calculate. Now, if I only added lead at 12 o'clock, I guess it would depend on the frame (and its stock weight distribution) how wide would it be the sweet zone.

Some racquets are unstable without lead at 3/9 (YT Prestige) and some are (IG Prestige, RF97). I've saw a video that higher twistweight is making a comeback to add comfort. These sorts of frames allow you to just add lead at 12:00 to get higher SW.

 

[Shroud]

You people who are barely a 4.0 level player focus WAAAAAAY too much on your equipment to "make" you a better player. Try taking lessons and keeping 5 rally balls in the court.

I would hate to see your serve with a 400SW frame. WOW!!!!

Here you go. And with a full kevlar string bed at 86/86lbs to boot. Sure my technique could be better but the sw isnt what is holding me back:

 

[Shroud]

For sweet spot i meant the balance between rhs and sw. Where you get good rhs and still have a solid racket.

 

[floydcouncil]

Here you go. And with a full kevlar string bed at 86/86lbs to boot. Sure my technique could be better but the sw isnt what is holding me back:

Yup.. just as I expected. Majority of your serves are going long. You simply can't snap the wrist with an awful SW of 400.
Your racket head speed on your kick is quite low. I see deceleration, not acceleration.

 

[floydcouncil]

Yeah you know everyone's ntrp rating. Especially from watching a 5 minute clip of baseline rally.

I know a few people on here who "focus way too much on their equipment" who would take 99% of players to the wood shed, even a lot of guys at the 5.0 or 5.5 level.

If you think a 400 sw on a modern racquet is too much, I'd hate to see someone put a woodie in your hands. Beyond that I would love to see you handle shroud.

He can't keep 5 rally balls in the court. End of discussion. He's taking no 5.0 and 5.5 to the woodshed any time soon.

 

[BlueB]

...isnt what is holding me back.

But you need something to hold you back on those serves, at least 10cm
Sorry couldn't resist... just friendly ribbing.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Shroud]

But you need something to hold you back on those serves, at least 10cm
Sorry couldn't resist... just friendly ribbing.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

LOL. That was a good one. Funny thing is that I can hit serves out just as easy with the 330sw racket! We can talk all about rackets and technique but I would serve WAY better with a healthy back! Or at least one the isnt tight all the time...

I'll back up 10cm next time I serve and see if you are right.

 

[Bogdan_TT]

You guys are displaying some serious numbers here.

My to go stick was measured at 320sw (kg/cm2).
Today I tinkered with one of them to try and provide a more "solid" albeit unnecessary feeling. So I added only 3g of led and boosted the sw to only 330 with minimum changs to the racquet.

Needless to say that I drilled the back fence
I'll go back to 320. That's more than enough for me.

 

[BlueB]

Talking mostly about feet and that dreaded white line, though

On a less humorous note, try to not cross over right in front of left. It would prevent you from foot faulting and keep you more sideways thus helping with top spin.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Shroud]

He can't keep 5 rally balls in the court. End of discussion. He's taking no 5.0 and 5.5 to the woodshed any time soon.

He is not talking bout me...

I wasnt trying to hit rally balls by the way. I was focused on the fh and trying to get a certain shape to the shot. I was pretty happy given that the shot was totally new, the racket was 70 sw lower and I hadnt used this racket in a month because of the the RF972016 playtest. And well there is the fact that I am not a baseliner at all...

But hey I was 11-1 on the BH and hit that particularly difficult shot at 45 sec, which was made easier I think by the lighter racket. But other shots like returns suffer from the low sw. Volleys too I think. Thats why I started this thread- to get the best of both. So far you contribution is that 400 is too high. I don't disagree exactly and but would say its not optimum.

 

[Shroud]

Talking mostly about feet and that dreaded white line, though

On a less humorous note, try to not cross over right in front of left. It would prevent you from foot faulting and keep you more sideways thus helping with top spin.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Great point. Thats why vid is a must. I had no idea of the ff until I saw the vid and crossing the center line!

 

[sma1001]

Foot fault!

Good on you for posting videos and being prepared to be subject to the opinions of the masses. It takes some cajones.